> Detailanzeige

van Vugt, Vincent A; Bosmans, Judith E; Finch, Aureliano P; van der Wouden, Johannes C; van der Horst, Henriëtte E; Maarsingh, Otto R

Cost-effectiveness of internet-based vestibular rehabilitation with and without physiotherapy support for adults aged 50 and older with a chronic vestibular syndrome in general practice

Literatur-
verwaltung

Zur
Merkliste

Lösche von
Merkliste

Per Whatsapp teilen

Schließen

Merkliste



Sie können Bookmarks mittels Listen verwalten, loggen Sie sich dafür bitte in Ihr SLUB Benutzerkonto ein.
  • Medientyp: E-Artikel
  • Titel: Cost-effectiveness of internet-based vestibular rehabilitation with and without physiotherapy support for adults aged 50 and older with a chronic vestibular syndrome in general practice
  • Beteiligte: van Vugt, Vincent A; Bosmans, Judith E; Finch, Aureliano P; van der Wouden, Johannes C; van der Horst, Henriëtte E; Maarsingh, Otto R
  • Erschienen: BMJ, 2020
  • Erschienen in: BMJ Open
  • Sprache: Englisch
  • DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035583
  • ISSN: 2044-6055
  • Schlagwörter: General Medicine
  • Entstehung:
  • Anmerkungen:
  • Beschreibung: <jats:sec><jats:title>Objectives</jats:title><jats:p>To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of stand-alone and blended internet-based vestibular rehabilitation (VR) in comparison with usual care (UC) for chronic vestibular syndromes in general practice.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Design</jats:title><jats:p>Economic evaluation alongside a three-armed, individually randomised controlled trial.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Setting</jats:title><jats:p>59 Dutch general practices.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Participants</jats:title><jats:p>322 adults, aged 50 years and older with a chronic vestibular syndrome.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Interventions</jats:title><jats:p>Stand-alone VR consisted of a 6-week, internet-based intervention with weekly online sessions and daily exercises. In blended VR, this intervention was supplemented with face-to-face physiotherapy support. UC group participants received usual general practice care without restrictions.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Main outcome measures</jats:title><jats:p>Societal costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), Vertigo Symptom Scale—Short Form (VSS-SF), clinically relevant response (≥3 points VSS-SF improvement).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Mean societal costs in both the stand-alone and blended VR groups were statistically non-significantly higher than in the UC group (mean difference (MD) €504, 95% CI −1082 to 2268; and €916, 95% CI −663 to 2596). Both stand-alone and blended VR groups reported non-significantly more QALYs than the UC group (MD 0.02, 95% CI −0.00 to 0.04; and 0.01, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.03), and significantly better VSS-SF Scores (MD 3.8 points, 95% CI 1.7 to 6.0; and 3.3 points, 95% CI 1.3 to 5.2). For stand-alone VR compared with UC, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.95 at a willingness-to-pay ratio of €24 161/QALY, €600/point improvement in VSS-SF and €8000/clinically relevant responder in VSS-SF. For blended VR versus UC, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.95 at a willingness-to-pay ratio of €123 335/QALY, €900/point improvement in VSS-SF and €24 000/clinically relevant responder in VSS-SF.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>Stand-alone and blended internet-based VR non-significantly increased QALYs and significantly reduced vestibular symptoms compared with UC, while costs in both groups were non-significantly higher. Stand-alone VR has the highest probability to be cost-effective compared with UC.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Trial registration number</jats:title><jats:p>The Netherlands Trial Register NTR5712.</jats:p></jats:sec>
  • Zugangsstatus: Freier Zugang